Home » Education News

Seminary task force delivers report

December 4, 2010 10 Comments

Acting-president Dr. Tom Winger (Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Catharines, Ont.) and President Dr. Manfred Zeuch (Concordia Lutheran Seminary, Edmonton) will discuss the report with their faculty, staff and Boards of Regents.

Members of Lutheran Church–Canada’s Board of Directors received the long-anticipated report from the Task Force on Cost Efficient and Sustainable Seminary Education, December 2. The key recommendation is that LCC conduct seminary education on two campuses, St. Catharines and Edmonton, under a single administration, curriculum and Board of Regents. Other recommendations include establishing on-line “distributed education” courses; capping the number of professors at five, including the president; the use of “smart boards” to allow a professor to teach simultaneously in both locations; a review of how LCC’s Handbook deals with seminary accountability to the church and Board of Directors and a new name for the reconfigured seminary. (Download the report here.)

“The report gives the Board of Directors and the entire church a lot to chew on,” remarked President Robert Bugbee. He expressed his deep appreciation for the tireless work of the task force over the past two years. “It was a vast undertaking that was not without difficulties and tensions for everyone involved. We thank God for the patience and determination that has provided this roadmap for us all to consider.”

In its investigation the task force looked at the history of seminary education in the LCMS and LCC noting that currently almost two-thirds of pastors serving LCC parishes are graduates of LCC seminaries. The report also notes that, were it not for accumulated debt repayments, both Canadian seminaries currently operate in a balanced financial position. However, LCC treasurer, Dwayne Cleave has reported that synod’s 2011 budget includes a reduction in the amount paid to LCC’s two seminaries.

Realizing the status quo is unsustainable and based on what it heard from the seminaries and the church-at-large, the task force report presents four alternatives: 1) close both Canadian seminaries and send pastoral ministry students to study at an LCMS seminary; 2) close one seminary and concentrate pastoral education in one location; 3) bring seminary education under the umbrella of Concordia University College of Alberta in Edmonton; 4) create a single administration and curriculum for a unified seminary program available on campuses in Edmonton and St. Catharines, Ontario.

The report looks at the pros and cons of each alternative. The chairman, Rev. Nolan Astley, task force member Howard Famme and LCC President Robert Bugbee met with Dr. Manfred Zeuch, president of Concordia Lutheran Seminary, Edmonton and Dr. Thomas Winger, acting president of Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Catharines to discuss the alternatives, before the task force presented the fourth as its key recommendation.

The Board of Directors, who discussed a draft of the report at its meeting in early November, noted that each alternative would require changes to such things as elected governance; accountabilities; how the institutions grant degrees and administrative oversight. Resolution 08.3.04 adopted at the 2008 Synodical Convention gives the Board of Directors the authority to make any changes necessary to achieve a cost efficient seminary program and to bring any by-law changes to the 2011 convention to enact the plan.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Canadian Lutheran Online » Blog Archive » Seminary task force delivers report -- Topsy.com

  • http://twitter.com/paulney Paul Ney

    There are two problems with our seminaries.
    1. Affordability of the program.
    2. Quality of the education.

    Unifying governance potentially solves number two – although, presiding over educational institutions on opposite ends of the second largest country in the world sounds like a nightmare – the president of an educational institution needs to be in touch with the students, how on earth is he or she supposed to do that? – but the concept of continuing to operate two seminaries with average operating budgets of 3/4 of a million dollars each and a combined debt of nearly a million dollars for an average of THIRTY TO FORTY STUDENTS makes little-to-no sense to me.

    Anytime you can include (and I don’t care about the context, or the subsequent “but”):
    “It is no secret that LCC is declining numerically and greying”
    in an official synodical report, you have a SERIOUS PROBLEM that requires DECISIVE and coherent action. The aging and attrition of current pastors can certainly be considered a factor in at least some of this decline (and let me be very clear that this is in no way a reflection of the outstanding abilities of any of those pastors). Pandering to sentimental rhetoric about being “thankful for the gift of two Seminaries” is a terrifying recipe for disaster when incorporated into official policy decision-making.

    And the subtle attempt at fear-mongering by including some unsupported anecdote about the closing of a seminary in Brazil causing a runaway decrease in enrolment is immature at best, and irresponsible at worst.

    Close a seminary. Pass the MILLION DOLLAR savings in cost onto a combination of a reduction of student tuition and the ability to attract the highest grade of professors. Start turning out the most unbelievable product possible. When you are at capacity at one of your seminaries – which will doubtlessly happen once a reputation for being one of the best seminaries in the country is established – then compile a report on the most logical and cost-effective place to build a second one. Such a reputation will never exist for distance-managed, under-attended, deficit-operating (for the most part) institutions.

    (On an unrelated note, it’s fantastic that the CL has a comment function! Well done)

  • Tim Kuehn

    Most of the seminary cost is in salary and benefits, so closing a seminary certainly won’t realize $1M worth of savings.

    • http://twitter.com/paulney Paul Ney

      I don’t think you’d need two seminaries-worth of faculty and staff to run one seminary.

      • Tim Kuehn

        Neither of the sems are that big in terms of either professors or support staff, so eliminating either sem would leave the other sem understaffed and would mean transferring some staff to the remaining seminary.

        Also, reading the report’s examination of revenue and expenses, even if all instruction was consolidated at one location, it’s not a “given” that the financial support each sem currently enjoys would follow through to the remaining seminary. The consequence of this would be that that while one _might_ save $500K / year in expense, if LCC lost that much (or more) in income, it’d find itself with only one seminary with even less available resources to work with on a per-student basis than it had with two seminaries that enjoyed support from their regional churches.

        In short, one can’t advocate closing a seminary on the basis that doing so would save on the cost side while ignoring the potential impact on the revenue side of the equation. If one were to save 50% of ongoing expenses at a cost of a more than 50% reduction in support revenue, LCC would be in a worse position with one seminary than it is now with two seminaries.

  • Rev. Richard Beinert

    The report looks like a recipe for disaster to me. In addition to creating an administrative nightmare, the very notion of a two-campus seminary with paired-down faculty in each location removes both any meaningful cohort experience within the total student body as well as impairs the ability of the President to meaningfully supervise both students & staff. My fear (should the recommendations be adopted) is that this structure will 1) dilute the quality of our seminary program by dividing a unified supervision of the future pastoral candidates (something which cannot be adequately done through internet-based technology), 2) create an administrative nightmare for the institutional president which will result in both short-term presidencies as well as a long-term difficulties in attracting quality candidates for the position, and 3) similarly the teaching/administrative demands placed upon an already strained teaching faculty will impair our ability to attract top-notch scholars to fill the teaching positions. These concerns combined with trying to ‘borrow’ smart-technology classrooms from neighbouring institutions and then trying to coordinate class-times between them strikes me as an impossible solution for an already difficult situation.

    The way I see it, what-ever change is made, there will be a financial & marketing cost during the period of transition. The proposed changes, in trying to avoid this reality, offer a solution which will both impair the academic environment for our teaching faculty (in their ability to maintain solid & active ongoing study & research) and as a result, diminish the quality of our seminary ‘product’.

    I would prefer to see us move to one Seminary in one location (either location – or a new one) where the faculty can work side-by-side in order to nurture the future pastors of our Church, making use of whatever teaching technology as desired to further the seminary’s role as a theological resource for the national church as they deem appropriate – recognizing that these alternative modes of course delivery are just that – alternative – and should not be confused or substituted for face-to-face supervision & instruction.

  • Lenweber

    Agree with the concept of one administration for both universities. To close one or the other would pose tremendous inconvenience and hardship for those seminary students wanting to attend from the other end of the country. OUC, I believe, is an example of a university, with campuses up and down the Valley functioning under one administration.

    • Rev. Richard Beinert

      Yes, OUC manages to operate that way – but all the campuses are in one Valley within a day’s traveling distance. Also, each campus manages a different vocational program so that you do have both a unified face-to-face campus community for each of the different training programs with concentrated faculty in each place allowing for each campus to work independently within their own area of specialization.

      We need to consider what it is that we will be asking of our faculty & administrators should this proposal be pushed through. The President will have to try to maintain adequate supervision of both campuses which will involve not only increased internet communications but regular travel across the country. These trips as well as the required accomodations will drastically impact the institutional budget. Also, the impact on the President’s family will need to be considered as he travels and spends potentially weeks at a time away from wife & children. From the outside, this might seem like a small thing to consider – but for candidates considering a call to such a position, these are items which can make or break a decision to accept the call.

      • Lenweber

        Rev. Richard Beinert – Reply to your reply – First of all, a Very Merry Christmas to you and your family and best wishes for the New Year. Had not read your post when I made my comments. I agree with the comments in both of your postings and also have come to the realization that those who have attended Seminary are better qualified to comment on the pros and cons of the options presented by the task force. However, I do believe it makes the most sense to keep the two Canadian seminaries operating.

        • Rev. Richard Beinert

          Hi Len – and merry Christmas to you too! The situation we are facing is a tough one. A huge concern of mine is that the report does not present any vision for developing theological education within Canada so that our Seminaries become a resource for the Church – not only for the simple task of training pastors – but also, more importantly, as a place where people can receive theological training for the benefit of the Church. It also presents no vision to developing our own educational resources to provide for the possibility for higher education (training our own professors with advanced masters &/or doctoral degrees) right here in Canada. Instead, the solution is one which limits what our professors & seminary/s can do by placing an unrealistic teaching & administrative load on them so that, in the end, we are effectively binding the hands & feet of our institutions so that they cannot effectively pursue their mandate. Rather than building quality theological education in Canada, the report lays out a plan which will, in essence, hinder it.

          Pass on our Christmas Greetings to everyone back at Redeemer for us.